Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 12:36 PM > To: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; francesco@xxxxxxxxxx; Pete Hsieh > <tsung-hsien.hsieh@xxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini > <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client > mode > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or > opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report > this email' button > > > Hi Brian, > > > From: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 1:53 AM > > To: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; francesco@xxxxxxxxxx; Pete Hsieh > > <tsung-hsien.hsieh@xxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini > > <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme > > for client mode > > > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking > > links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using > > the 'Report this email' button > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 12:50:59AM +0000, David Lin wrote: > > > > > > > From: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 6:55 AM > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 3:01 PM David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > I think it needs time to support probe client. Can we put your > > > > > suggested comments to the code used to hook probe_client() and > > > > > add > > > > > > > > > > "TODO: support probe client" to mwifiex_cfg80211_probe_client(). > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that you plan to actually implement proper > > > > probe_client support? Did you already do what I suggested, and > > > > understand why hostapd needs probe_client support? This seems to > > > > be a common pattern -- that reviewers are asking for you to do > > > > your research, and it takes several requests before you actually do it. > > > > > > > > Now that I've tried to do that research for you ... it looks like > > > > hostapd uses probe_client to augment TX MGMT acks, as a proxy for > > > > station presence / inactivity. If a station is inactive and > > > > non-responsive, we disconnect it eventually. So that looks to me > > > > like probe_client support should actually be optional, if your > > > > driver reports TX status? And in that case, I'd still recommend > > > > you try to fix > > hostapd. > > > > > > > > But if you're really planning to implement proper probe_client > > > > support, then I suppose the TODO approach is also OK. > > > > > > > > I'd also request that you please actually do your research when > > > > reviewers ask questions. I'm frankly not sure why I'm spending my > > > > time on the above research, when the onus should be on the > > > > submitter to explain why they're doing what they're doing. > > > > > > Yes. I know when aging time of station is out, hostapd will use > > > probe_client > > to check if station is still there before really disconnect it. > > > > > > Without this feature, it won't really affect mayor function of hostapd. > > > > I'm glad *you* know all about the above behavior, but *I* didn't know > > about it until I went and researched what this API does, and how > > hostapd is using it. But that isn't my job -- it's your job, as the > > code submitter, to explain your reasoning and reduce the amount of > > work that readers/reviewers/maintainers have to do to understand your > code and agree that it is the right thing to do. > > > > It's not clear to me that you've really learned the above lesson, and > > it's really affecting the rate at which I review your code. This is by > > far not the first time that you've placed the burden on the reader. > > And if you're going to make the job difficult, then I'll prioritize > > enjoying my free time, or stuff that actually pays me at $DAY_JOB, or ... > > I will keep this in mind. > > > > > > That is the reason that I suggest that we put comments and TODO to > > > the > > code. > > > > OK, I suppose that works for me. > > > > Brian > > I suggest that we just put your comments and prepare patch v11. > > Thanks, > David I think WPA3 is more robust and updated security method. Please help to let this patch be accepted. Please let me know what else should be done to let this patch be ACKed by you. Another is already ACKed by you with minor modification. Thanks for your efforts and helps. David
